the article is actually about how Dr Who and Sherlock shows did over the holidays

back to Star Trek II/12 whatever,its good seeing Karl Urban back as Bones i really enjoyed him in the first film although he has been in films since Star Trek(Priest for one)i have not seen any of them,and i do like him,probably because of Lord of the Rings..he has a lot in pre-pro though,including a new Riddick film and also a new Judge Dredd film,he plays Dredd(i wonder if he will take his helmet off?)

So what changed his mind? “We actually converted a bunch of the original movie [to 3-D], which looked really good,” Abrams told reporters today. “That was the thing which made me think it would be okay.” Abrams says he wanted to shoot the movie on celluloid film in the anamorphic format, like he did with his first Trek film, “and you can’t shoot 3-D in anamorphic. I didn’t want to shoot it digitally.…I wanted it to match the look of the first and shoot it anamorphically. Then I saw the first movie converted; it was actually really cool. So I was okay with [converting the film to 3-D], as long as I could shoot it the way I wanted to.” And yes, that includes Abrams’ signature lens flares.

great, i always wanted to know what it was like to have a supernova go off in my face.

you could always call up hepcat.....

For those at home who aren't familiar with Ceekay, this is an attempt to draw a humorous comparison between a sexual act and a special effect in a movie depicting a sun exploding. Ceekay loves these types of comical analogies and will frequently use them in an attempt to be funny. Stick around and see what this little scamp has up his sleeve next, folks!

Logged

Warning: You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.

great, i always wanted to know what it was like to have a supernova go off in my face.

you could always call up hepcat.....

For those at home who aren't familiar with Ceekay, this is an attempt to draw a humorous comparison between a sexual act and a special effect in a movie depicting a son exploding. Ceekay loves these types of comical analogies and will frequently use them in an attempt to be funny. Stick around and see what this little scamp has up his sleeve next, folks!

FTFY

Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson

I just hope the villain is a bit more complicated, interesting, motivated than Nero.

My Nero impression is:"I'm CRAZY! I HATE YOU! YOU KILLED MY PEOPLE! YOU MUST DIE! EVERYONE MUST DIE"Lather, rinse, repeat. Never mind why his crew wouldn't just mutiny and off their fearless whack job leader.

And I've seen Eric Bana do great work. Munich. Much of Oliver Stone's Troy unintentionally made me laugh when I saw it in theaters in 2004, but I thought Bana's performance was the best thing in it. But he didn't have much to do in ST but frouth at the moth and *see above, repeat ad nauseam*

I just hope the villain is a bit more complicated, interesting, motivated than Nero.

My Nero impression is:"I'm CRAZY! I HATE YOU! YOU KILLED MY PEOPLE! YOU MUST DIE! EVERYONE MUST DIE"Lather, rinse, repeat. Never mind why his crew wouldn't just mutiny and off their fearless whack job leader.

And I've seen Eric Bana do great work. Munich. Much of Oliver Stone's Troy unintentionally made me laugh when I saw it in theaters in 2004, but I thought Bana's performance was the best thing in it. But he didn't have much to do in ST but frouth at the moth and *see above, repeat ad nauseam*

Watch the deleted scenes on the Blu Ray version. It adds some depth and direction to Nero, although not a ton. But it at least explains what he was doing in between the beginning of the movie and the finale.

It's gotta be Trelane. Hiring a British actor to play an aristocratic omnipotent being seems fitting.

As for Nero, yeah, I agree. I don't think he was a great villain, and the backstory was weak, explained away in a single scene. The thing that upset me about the movie the most was that, nevermind Vulcan being destroyed in the alternate universe, but the writers destroyed Romulus in the Prime universe, the event that triggered his revenge.

I know this is repeat information and it shouldn't require another media to provide the backstory, BUT, the series Star Trek:Countdown provides the info on Nero. It explains the anger, the bald heads, the tattoos, and pretty much what happened in the prime universe before the time rift.

I enjoyed the movie, but I wondered how the rest of the audience followed Nero's motives.

I know this is repeat information and it shouldn't require another media to provide the backstory, BUT, the series Star Trek:Countdown provides the info on Nero. It explains the anger, the bald heads, the tattoos, and pretty much what happened in the prime universe before the time rift.

I enjoyed the movie, but I wondered how the rest of the audience followed Nero's motives.

Yeah, all info that should have been in the movie. All we have is that one scene in the movie which feels like an afterthought. I read the comic book after a friend lent it to me, and it actually made me even more pissed about the movie due to the fact that they needed to put out this comic book. They could have easily have had a few minutes before the Kelvin encounter, such as maybe Romulus exploding in the prime universe to give the audience some reason why Nero was angry. Would have had much more impact, if the first thing we saw was the supernova destroying Romulus. Would have been such a WTF moment carrying a lot of weight. I realize the Star Trek movie was an action movie, but even for an action movie it was thin on exposition. I get it why the Romulans, or Nero's gang in particular have tattooed heads, but only after reading the comic book. At the same time, it was unfair for them to not mention it in the movie as the Romulans have never been presented that way before.

I just hope the villain is a bit more complicated, interesting, motivated than Nero.

My Nero impression is:"I'm CRAZY! I HATE YOU! YOU KILLED MY PEOPLE! YOU MUST DIE! EVERYONE MUST DIE"Lather, rinse, repeat. Never mind why his crew wouldn't just mutiny and off their fearless whack job leader.

And I've seen Eric Bana do great work. Munich. Much of Oliver Stone's Troy unintentionally made me laugh when I saw it in theaters in 2004, but I thought Bana's performance was the best thing in it. But he didn't have much to do in ST but frouth at the moth and *see above, repeat ad nauseam*

I just hope the villain is a bit more complicated, interesting, motivated than Nero.

My Nero impression is:"I'm CRAZY! I HATE YOU! YOU KILLED MY PEOPLE! YOU MUST DIE! EVERYONE MUST DIE"Lather, rinse, repeat. Never mind why his crew wouldn't just mutiny and off their fearless whack job leader.

And I've seen Eric Bana do great work. Munich. Much of Oliver Stone's Wolfgang Petersen's Troy unintentionally made me laugh when I saw it in theaters in 2004, but I thought Bana's performance was the best thing in it. But he didn't have much to do in ST but frouth at the moth and *see above, repeat ad nauseam*

I understood Nero's "motivation," I just think the character was underwritten and didn't give Bana much to do but act histrionic (I loved the movie anyway). Might've been more interesting to either get some peek at what he lost as an individual (his family etc.), or maybe if some of his crew wanted to mutiny once they realized how far gone he was. But I don't know if a movie that intro'd so many characters (as an "origin" film) could afford to spend time on that.

I didn't think Bana was horrible but I agree with Rumpy that they really shouldn't have made folks go out and read the damn comic book for plot points that could easily have been included in the damn movie...and should have been.

Logged

Warning: You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.

It's really hard to get the character when very important scenes that define the character are not included in the movie. I thought that the angry Romulan element was weak. Why didn't they try to save their planet in the past? How many decades were they going to wait for Spock before deciding he's not coming? Did they really have enough supplies to wait on that ship for that freakin' long? Why was their mining ship so completely badass?

After reading the backstory that was not included in the movie I thought the Romulan element was only mildly weak.

I don't think any actor could have turned Nero into a great villain. There just wasn't enough to work with.

Exactly, McNutt. I found it very hard to care about Nero's intent because we didn't know enough about him or what happened in terms of backstory. That part felt very weak. It ultimately was a revenge story, much like WoK was. But it worked in WoK because we already knew Kahn and we could understand why he was angry at Kirk and wanting revenge. We really had none of that going in with Nero. Just an angry Romulan who wants revenge is all we got, and we're supposed to care? Hell, even Shinzon in Nemesis had more of a backstory, partly due to the fact that he was cloned from Picard. There was just so much they could have done with the backstory to flesh him out and give us a more compelling reason.

Anyhow, I do have another theory for Cumberbatch. Could he be a Section 31 agent? Black uniforms normally represent Section 31. And another thing. Could he be Future Guy from Enterprise? Maybe he's both.

having the how and the why explained in a movie is the difference between good storytelling and Michael Bay.

While I loved JJ's take on Star Trek, I do feel that they dropped the ball on Nero. That they included them in a series of comic books is even more egregious as it shows they were aware they skimped on the story and were going to profit off of that.

Logged

Warning: You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.

having the how and the why explained in a movie is the difference between good storytelling and Michael Bay.

While I loved JJ's take on Star Trek, I do feel that they dropped the ball on Nero. That they included them in a series of comic books is even more egregious as it shows they were aware they skimped on the story and were going to profit off of that.

Now you are making things up, and saying that what applies to you, applies to everyone - Thats not a fair discussion.

The how and why isn't necessary if you give the viewer enough information to form his own ideas of the situation. Often, the imagination can come up with better scenarios than explicit storytelling can. Actually, being able to make the viewer speculate and wonder and make his own conjecture instead of simply telling, is the difference between storytelling and great storytelling ;-)

...or it was just a really crappy way to make more money off the audience. Your assertion that it was intended to be an open ended back story (which, by the way, usually applies to endings, not beginnings) falls apart the moment you see the comic books explaining the back story on a shelf in a comic book store for 2.99.

p.s.

Quote

Now you are making things up, and saying that what applies to you, applies to everyone - Thats not a fair discussion.

so you're not trying to say you're right as well?

« Last Edit: February 28, 2012, 07:18:38 PM by hepcat »

Logged

Warning: You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.